It is stated that the lease contract between the defendant and G is stipulated, and the lessor is responsible for and responsible for the auction of the equipment of the workplace caused by the whole lessee.

In light of the fact that the defendant ordered the lessor to move the movable property attached with the attachment tag, etc., it can be recognized that the defendant ordered the lessor to move the movable property with the attachment tag.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The lower court’s reasoning is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant instructed the submission of the attached attachment marks to E solely on the basis of the statement of E and G and the investigation report (referring to the witness J telephone investigation) on November 30, 2015, and on the sole basis of the statement of a self-lease agreement on November 30, 2015.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the instant charges.

In this context, the lower court duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, ① instructed the Defendant to employ the testors to bear the expenses and to transfer the movable property attached with the attachment tag to the underground parking lot, and the Defendant hired additional 7-8 persons as well as the new ones to perform the removal work, and transferred the movable property.

While making a statement "(1 right 39 pages of investigation records)", on the other hand, "no defendant has separately claimed wages of the above father, and the above father has carried out removal work for 9 hours after moving one-hour quantity of goods.

“After having made a statement, E appears to have moved the corporeal movable as part of the work in the course of performing artificial construction rather than having employed the human body by the direction of the Defendant.